Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

When Seagal Sensei teaches he is direct and succinct. He answers all questions honestly and with tremendous insight. There was one time I had so many questions about Irimi-nage that I had them listed out on a sheet of paper. By the time he answered the first question there was no need to continue. He had explained it in such a way that I knew exactly what he was doing. However, he expects once he does teach something, that you understand it and perform it correctly. He seems to be turned off by having to repeat himself. But is that not the way many traditional teachers teach? His Aikido is on a different level, thus, he teaches on a different level.

As for his desire to hurt people, I will say this: His desire for functional Aikido is greater than his desire to hurt people. I have been in a compromised position more than once (shihonage) and he paused to allow me to catch up or adjust before throwing. Having the opportunity to hurt me, he chose not to.

Well, I mean, that sounds cool. I can understand not wanting to repeat yourself when you give highly detailed answers.

...As a parent and now grandparent, I am concerned about what we expose our children to. Watching our children repeat our own stupidity is bad enough, that we do not need other "role models" like that helping us out.

Stan Pranin wrote a nice article on that subject, calling on Steven Seagal and Chuck Norris both to come off the hyper violence for those same reasons.

---
An Open Letter to Norris, Seagal, and Van Damme
by Stanley Pranin
Aiki News #97 (Fall/Winter 1993)
A little boy made me write this letter. A little boy whose name is John. He's my son. I've watched him grow for the last two years and eight months, and each day he has gained more knowledge, strength and dexterity. I have noted that he acquires most of his skills through observation, imitation, and repetition. Therefore, as a parent I feel a great responsibility for creating a positive, supportive environment in order to enhance his ability to learn.

The other night I settled down with my family for a relaxed evening watching an "action-comedy" movie, but it still contained the typical repertoire of killings, explosives, car chases, and the like. At a certain point in the film, little John instinctively recoiled from the television set in reaction to a violent scene and I found myself reaching over, also instinctively, to cover his eyes with my hands.

This set me to thinking, gentleman. Here we have the marvelous media of film, television, and video with their enormous potential to entertain and educate. Yet with the type of programming offered, we are obliged to pay careful attention in order to protect our children from being exposed to a steady stream of violence, vulgarity, and pornography. I don't think it takes a Ph.D. to understand that children, and adults too for that matter, are strongly influenced by what they see on movie and TV screens. The nonchalant attitude of the entertainment industry concerning this situation reminds me very much of the stance of the tobacco companies who still cling to the claim that there is no conclusive scientific proof linking cigarette smoking to numerous diseases.

Mr. Norris, Mr. Seagal, and Mr. Van Damme, I wouldn't even bother to address these comments to you gentlemen were it not for the fact that you are "martial artists," or to put it a bit more poetically, "seeker on the martial path." I would therefore suspect, given your lethal skills, that you have heightened understanding and appreciation for the consequences of your actions. All three of you have attained outstanding abilities in the martial arts through years of effort, sweat, and pain. You have subsequently made use of these talents to captivate screen audiences the world over and have touched hundreds of millions of youngsters who comprise the majority of your fans. The influence you wield is mind-boggling and carries with it a remarkable potential for inspiring and shaping young minds.

Although there is much to admire in the heroes you portray on the bigger-than-life movie screen -- courage in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles, technical expertise, physical conditioning and development -- I believe that the message you are conveying through your film roles is profoundly negative and destructive.

Given the genre of films in which you appear no one expects you to turn in Academy Award-winning performances or portray complex characters who undergo subtle psychological transformations. However, even though your screen alter-egos are usually heroes, they are heroes whose notions of right and wrong are frequently blurred and who resort to violence at the drop of a hat. Your fictional counterparts are like trigger-happy gunfighters who would rather fight than flee even though their actions lead to injuries or death. Your decision in the face of fictional danger and violence provide a menu of choices for many impressionable youngsters who will imitate you in an an attempt to solve their own real-life problems. Doesn't this scare the hell out of you and fill you with a deep humbleness for the importance of your roles as character models?

Surely the mark of a master of martial arts lies not in reflexively resorting to a physical solution for disputes, but rather in displaying an expanded awareness and determination not to exercise force except in the most extreme circumstances. Your screen characters are often arrogant show-offs who flaunt a false sense of righteousness and are in great part responsible for the low image of martial arts in many quarters.

You might claim in "self-defense" that there is really nothing you can do about the quality or content of the movies in which you are contractually bound to appear and that it is the industry moguls who call all the shots. This would be somewhat convincing if you were just breaking into films. However, you have long since achieved your fame, fortunes, and the power that accompanies them, and are certainly able to influence the story-lines and final content of your film vehicles. You are mega-stars and with this comes mega-responsibility!
----
I'm not sure that's the whole bit. But it's a good summary.

Quote:

Marc Abrams wrote:

Look forward to training with you again in the near future (I hope).

I hope so, too. Best to you and yours.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

There is a documentary on S. Seagal as an aikidoist on youtube. Yes, his aikido is a lot harder than most of us are used to, but he wants it to be effective on the street. The reason he might come across as a jerk might be because he "knows and expects excelence", to quote one of his students. He is probably not the kind of instructor you would go to if you only want to train twice a week, but rather the kind of instructor for people who want to devote their life to aikido. He has really high standards.

Excellent point! If you don't like his style of training, then just ignore it. It's not for everybody. I recently met a former student of his that has invited me to come and train with him one day. He did mention that the training was rather hard. He said that because he doesn't know what I am use to. I currently train in Chiba Sensei's style, which is another style that is thought to be "hard." If you have ever been to a seminar with him, some might say that he is a jerk, he's too rough, too brutal, and doesn't care about his uke. Many on the other hand don't see it that way. They see it as hard training that could lead to good self defense on the street. One thing Seagal wants from his students, is for them to really be able to handle themselves on the street, which is very different from handling uke in the dojo. It's a shame he is no longer teaching. I would like to attend a class and see for myself how he really is as a teacher.

Seems strange to me that people would hold Seagal Sensei under such tough scrutiny though most of us here have not studied with him directly or indirectly but at the same time will not hold our own 'heads of organizations' to the same scrutiny.

You did notice that no one responded to this, didn't you? It's a very good point. Until you've trained with Seagal, you really don't know anything except was is presented to you. To some he may be a jerk, but to others he may be great. To each his own. If I ever get a chance to train with him, I would do it. Just because he's hard, doesn't make him a jerk.

And to implant these kinds of seriously depraved images into that level of the public consciousness, through such a refined medium as the motion picture is seriously bad karma.

But with karma, it isn't up to *us* to visit it upon him is it? Personally, I think all the points you make are reasonable, without even referring to Seagal. Or at least being reasonably polite when doing so. I don't say this as a fan...just a casual observer.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)

However, aikido is a tremendously powerful mode of subconscious communication. Seagal's films are a despicable use of that powerful tool and gift. It's just like Jim and Tammy Bakker or any other person who misuses The Bible to make money for themselves. It's evil. It's the equivalent of prostituting aikido, and his positition would equate to the pimp in that simile. I hate to see a great art used that way. And that is real life.

David

I think that this is really dependant on personal views. I have not yet seen any forms of "subconcious communication" in aikido, whatever that might be.

Why should one not be allowed to use something one is very proficient at-in this case: aikido- to earn some money, while at the same time recruit new members for the aikido family? If I'm not mistaken, a whole lot of Japanese masters do exactly the same: they travel around the world giving seminars, and people often have to pay a lot in order to attend. I'm even happy for them, because very few people actually manage to make their passion their main source of income.

"A great art" is, again, subjective. What we find in aikido, others may find in Judo, Tae Kwon Do, personal religion or even their daily job. Aikido is not some kind of be-all end-all religion/thingy. It's a martial art. The main focus should always be on the martial. I know dojos who don't spend a second on the spiritual side of aikido and choose to focus only on the techniques. I have also read about dojos incorporating christian elements and teachings in their aikido (mainly in the US). It's really up to the instructor, what his beliefs are, and what he finds useful for his students. However, I believe that as a student, the biggest part is up to you. You have to discover for yourself what is of use to you, and what isn't, and you won't necessarily discover that in aikido. It's all very subjective.

I responded to your comment about holding heads of organizations responsible. I said it's a mistake. A very big mistake.

Quote:

Nafis Zahir wrote:

Until you've trained with Seagal, you really don't know anything except was is presented to you. To some he may be a jerk, but to others he may be great. To each his own. If I ever get a chance to train with him, I would do it. Just because he's hard, doesn't make him a jerk.

It's nothing about his training. I haven't commented on that. I've commented on the images he chooses to broadcast to the world, and his prostitution of aikido for personal gain. And the jerky image he presents of the aikidoka in his movies, which makes him seem like a jerk.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

I have not yet seen any forms of "subconcious communication" in aikido, whatever that might be.

What do you think it means when Sokaku Takeda says "The art of aiki is to overcome the opponent mentally, at a glance and win without fighting"?

When it's down to real life-and-death matters, aiki communicates deep to the would-be attacker's unconscious mind and weakens him from within. There is tremendous subconscious communication in many of the martial arts, but aikido contains a highly refined form of that if one can tap it through serious training.

Quote:

Maarten De Queecker wrote:

Why should one not be allowed to use something one is very proficient at-in this case: aikido- to earn some money, while at the same time recruit new members for the aikido family? If I'm not mistaken, a whole lot of Japanese masters do exactly the same: they travel around the world giving seminars, and people often have to pay a lot in order to attend. I'm even happy for them, because very few people actually manage to make their passion their main source of income.

The way masters present the art respects the art. Seagal has prostituted the art for personal gain. If you don't see the difference in presenting aikido demonstrations and presenting gory images of violence and hate, for profit, I don't know how better to explain it to you. Read Stan Pranin's letter.

Quote:

Maarten De Queecker wrote:

"A great art" is, again, subjective. What we find in aikido, others may find in Judo, Tae Kwon Do, personal religion or even their daily job. Aikido is not some kind of be-all end-all religion/thingy. It's a martial art. The main focus should always be on the martial. I know dojos who don't spend a second on the spiritual side of aikido and choose to focus only on the techniques.

But what dojo goes to such bloody lengths to pimp their art?

Someone earlier mentions Spencer Tracy and Jimmy Cagney as movie actors who had "misused" martial arts, but Jimmy Cagney was a judo black belt who I never saw misuse his art or misrepresent it or present it in such a sick light. Likewise with Spencer Tracy, of whom I'm aware of only one martial arts scene, in Bad Day at Black Rock and he just takes down a bully with some one-arm ju-jutsu. The Japanese, too, have quite a history of martial arts movies. But it's still considered low, low class to really prostitute the martial arts like Seagal does.

See, as I pointed out, The Challenge was a great movie (which Seagal, supposedly choreographed, but in which he did not appear). See the difference in that and in Seagal's much later Exit Wounds and you see the devolution into pure trash.

Quote:

Maarten De Queecker wrote:

I have also read about dojos incorporating christian elements and teachings in their aikido (mainly in the US). It's really up to the instructor, what his beliefs are, and what he finds useful for his students. However, I believe that as a student, the biggest part is up to you.

It's not about his aikido training. It's how he sells aikido out for a dirty buck. It's low and unworthy.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

Because their acting doesn't employ as deep a subconscious-to-subconscious communication capacity.... It's not that he makes atrocious movies, but that he so misuses the power.... This isn't so much about his acting but about what he chooses to portray and how he misuses aikido to do it.

Hhmm... again, I ask you; what about all the movies where they are doing drugs or using guns to murder people? Do they not influence others? They must also "misuse the power" by your definition. Murders in movies also portray just that.... murderers. Doesn't mean that once they are off the set they are scheming away on how to kill everyone.

Quote:

David Orange wrote:

So you would think just as well of O Sensei if you saw him smashing people's faces into mirrors or bathroom sinks? Not many ukes can take that.

As far as I know, classes are not held in a bathroom and there aren't sinks in the middle of a dojo.... Things in movies are meant to be as realistic as possible. When people get shot in a movie, are they truly shot? I don't think so. Otherwise, actors wouldn't be so quick to hop on board for an action movie.

The point is, if you despise him and his movies so much, then why do you watch them? If you haven't seen them, then you wouldn't be speaking of examples such as: this movie has this, this movie has that.

I'm not saying that what you say doesn't have any validity, as it does. Children should not watch certain things and that is the parent's responsibility. You however, are taking this to another level completley.

~Look into the eyes of your opponent & steal his spirit.
~To be a good martial artist is to be good thief; if you want my knowledge, you must take it from me.

Please don't misquote me...in my earlier post I referred to Cagney, Tracy and Carradine as actors who engendered interest in the martial arts through movies and did not characterize their portrayals as "misuse". The point I made was that Seagal Sensei created an interest in an uncommon martial art at the time and brought people into dojo to experience Aikido personally. In my personal opinion, creating the interest was a positive contribution and many would not have discovered Aikido (Seagal), Karate (Norris), Kung Fu (Carradine), Lee (Wing Chun/Jeet Kune Do), Judo (Cagney), or Jujutsu (Tracy) had it not been for the films they made. What I do say or write can create it's own controversy without being misquoted.

It's not about his aikido training. It's how he sells aikido out for a dirty buck. It's low and unworthy.

David

Gee, David... tell us how you really feel. I had written up a long, dispassionate reply which detailed the many factual errors in your comments, but unfortunately it got mistakenly deleted. After following the thread, I realized you didn't really deserve my time and effort, even though your comments go a long way to providing a negative view of a person that you know nothing about. I am not sure what you have accomplished in your life other than being able to look up and criticize those above you in the grander scheme of things, but, as it goes, you surely have managed to curdle my milk.

<rant>
You make it seem like your opinion has any real value, which it clearly does not. It is based completely on your inability to understand even the most basic elements of how Hollywood works, how Seagal Sensei views his role in both these films and in Hollywood. More importantly your opinion is devoid of balance as though you are not able to process any information that doesn't fit into your emotionally charged, child-like, temper-tantrum filled view of the world. You show that you do not have any real understanding of what Seagal Sensei is also well-know for, that being his promoting Buddhist precepts of love and compassion, a love for animals, to educate people on the damage being done to the environment and many, many other philanthropic endeavors in which he is highly involved. You paint a simplistic, nine year old's black and white view of a person with whom you have no personal knowledge of - one that clearly represents your black heart, and worse comes from your own, self-deluded ideals about how white the world should look. In short, GROW THE F UP!

Personally speaking, you seem like a jerk, and more than just a bit. You should never be allowed to teach (anything) nor be allowed near anyone's children for fear that you will corrupt their hearts, minds and future ability to discern reality from fantasy. Most importantly, you truly need to go see a mental health professional before you implode and attempt to injure yourself.

</rant>

If you keep continue to vomit up your idiotic vitriol, I may just have to tell you how I really feel in my next post.

I no longer participate in or read the discussion forums here on AikiWeb due to the unfair and uneven treatment of people by the owner/administrator.

If you keep continue to vomit up your idiotic vitriol, I may just have to tell you how I really feel in my next post.

If I continue to seem more and more of a jerk? Will it justify something more....what?

Ashley asked what about that all the people Seagal breaks up are all drug users or murderers? To put up these fantasy people with virtual fangs, then rip them to pieces also justifies that kind of mind in the real world: paint them evil; repeat. Paint them more evil; repeat. Until it is justified to do whatever one will to them.

It's the "whatever one will" that's way too over the top in Seagal's movies. You can't make money by poisoning people's minds and pay it back with Buddhist chants. And you can't abuse aikido without some comment from other people who have devoted large parts of their lives to the art.

But do tell me how you really feel.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

Gee, David... tell us how you really feel. I had written up a long, dispassionate reply which detailed the many factual errors in your comments, but unfortunately it got mistakenly deleted. After following the thread, I realized you didn't really deserve my time and effort, even though your comments go a long way to providing a negative view of a person that you know nothing about. I am not sure what you have accomplished in your life other than being able to look up and criticize those above you in the grander scheme of things, but, as it goes, you surely have managed to curdle my milk.

<rant>
You make it seem like your opinion has any real value, which it clearly does not. It is based completely on your inability to understand even the most basic elements of how Hollywood works, how Seagal Sensei views his role in both these films and in Hollywood. More importantly your opinion is devoid of balance as though you are not able to process any information that doesn't fit into your emotionally charged, child-like, temper-tantrum filled view of the world. You show that you do not have any real understanding of what Seagal Sensei is also well-know for, that being his promoting Buddhist precepts of love and compassion, a love for animals, to educate people on the damage being done to the environment and many, many other philanthropic endeavors in which he is highly involved. You paint a simplistic, nine year old's black and white view of a person with whom you have no personal knowledge of - one that clearly represents your black heart, and worse comes from your own, self-deluded ideals about how white the world should look. In short, GROW THE F UP!

Personally speaking, you seem like a jerk, and more than just a bit. You should never be allowed to teach (anything) nor be allowed near anyone's children for fear that you will corrupt their hearts, minds and future ability to discern reality from fantasy. Most importantly, you truly need to go see a mental health professional before you implode and attempt to injure yourself.

</rant>

If you keep continue to vomit up your idiotic vitriol, I may just have to tell you how I really feel in my next post.

Touché Shaun.

David,

I have never met Sensei Seagal, but from what I can see of his Aikido (not in his movies) but from various clips of his training and the documentary Beyond Thought, he seems like a teacher who really cares about the welfare of his students. He may or may not have an ego or attitude, I don't know...never met him. Like someone said before, his Aikido may not be for you. We shouldn't judge him based solely off movies or unverified internet rumors.

If I continue to seem more and more of a jerk? Will it justify something more....what?

Ashley asked what about that all the people Seagal breaks up are all drug users or murderers? To put up these fantasy people with virtual fangs, then rip them to pieces also justifies that kind of mind in the real world: paint them evil; repeat. Paint them more evil; repeat. Until it is justified to do whatever one will to them.

It's the "whatever one will" that's way too over the top in Seagal's movies. You can't make money by poisoning people's minds and pay it back with Buddhist chants. And you can't abuse aikido without some comment from other people who have devoted large parts of their lives to the art.

But do tell me how you really feel.

David

David:

Do you remember how much it costs for Buddhist enlightenment these days !

If I continue to seem more and more of a jerk? Will it justify something more....what?

Ashley asked what about that all the people Seagal breaks up are all drug users or murderers? To put up these fantasy people with virtual fangs, then rip them to pieces also justifies that kind of mind in the real world: paint them evil; repeat. Paint them more evil; repeat. Until it is justified to do whatever one will to them.

It's the "whatever one will" that's way too over the top in Seagal's movies. You can't make money by poisoning people's minds and pay it back with Buddhist chants. And you can't abuse aikido without some comment from other people who have devoted large parts of their lives to the art.

But do tell me how you really feel.

David

Just a question, I mean no offense, but are you a christian? Because you throw the word "evil" around a whole lot here.. That's what I meant by subjective: what is evil for you isn't necessarily evil to someone else.
As someone mentioned before, alas in a not so friendly tone, you seem to have a rather black vs. white kind of look on things; it seems that something is either good or evil for you. Don't forget that there is also a huge grey zone between those two opposites.

You have to buy a ticket to see a movie and I imagine your TV set has a channel selector of some sort. If you don't buy the tickets or don't watch TV that you find offensive, perhaps the selection will change to something more your taste. That was my choice and I haven't seen any of Seagal Sensei's movies for several years. I think "Under Siege" was the last. So far I don't think I've endangered his rice bowl, but I don't think he or his portrayals are evil either. I don't know him at all, so I'm not entitled to an opinion concerning his character. His characters however are just silly and over-the-top for my tastes. His worst offense to me is that he just doesn't know how to wear a military beret properly - makes me grind my teeth each and every time, but that's just me.

I have never met Sensei Seagal, but from what I can see of his Aikido (not in his movies) but from various clips of his training and the documentary Beyond Thought, he seems like a teacher who really cares about the welfare of his students.

Well, that's good, isn't it? Who would criticize that? I've only critiqued his movies, in agreement with Stan Pranin, though I'm sure Stan would never have gone so far as I have. But as far as "criticizing his aikido," that is necessary as far as he "uses" aikido in his movies. Or abuses. And one of the big abuses is the practice of dehumanizing the person he's going to rip to shreds. Much of the time, he represents a law officer and always "with attitude" that is also a bad role model to all those in LE and on its fringes. Even soldiers at war are required to treat their subjects with certain human dignities but Seagal justifies, then portrays a level of treatment reminiscent of the photos from Abu Ghraib. Shaun tells me I don't know how Hollywood works but I do know that Jackie Chan still does his own stunts and he doesn't have to abuse the great blessing he has recieved in his martial arts skills.

Quote:

Eric Joyce wrote:

He may or may not have an ego or attitude, I don't know...never met him. Like someone said before, his Aikido may not be for you. We shouldn't judge him based solely off movies or unverified internet rumors.

Know, Eric. His aikido looks okay in a lot of ways. It's how he employs it that's a shame.

And I was around when all that bad blood developed between him and the Urqidez brothers and Gene LeBell and a bunch of old time bone crunchers. Those stories are not rumors.

Be safe out there.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

Because you throw the word "evil" around a whole lot here.. That's what I meant by subjective: what is evil for you isn't necessarily evil to someone else.

And I'm saying O Sensei woud not smile on some of Steven's flicks.

Quote:

Maarten De Queecker wrote:

As someone mentioned before, alas in a not so friendly tone, you seem to have a rather black vs. white kind of look on things; it seems that something is either good or evil for you. Don't forget that there is also a huge grey zone between those two opposites.

Not everything. But it's evil to misuse a great blessing. It's evil to profit from misuse of a great blessing.

IMO

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

You have to buy a ticket to see a movie and I imagine your TV set has a channel selector of some sort.

Actually, only one channel works, now: the DVD channel. We get DVDs from the library and see stuff. No more Conan, since the digital switch. No Jimmy Fallon. No Letterman. My Sarah Palin quotient is way, way, down, but the library has this special section for movies way down below B grade, and it overfloweth with stuff like Dyin' ta Kill, and Killin' ta Live, and Hard to Whack and such and I sometimes peruse that. But that's neither here nor there.

Quote:

Michael Hackett wrote:

If you don't buy the tickets or don't watch TV that you find offensive, perhaps the selection will change to something more your taste.

I don't watch purely for taste. That's why I sometimes listen to Rush Limbaugh--just to hear the grunting and say, "Tut-tut."

You gotta know what's floating out there amidst the sharks. It's called "Bottom-Feeders."

Quote:

Michael Hackett wrote:

That was my choice and I haven't seen any of Seagal Sensei's movies for several years. I think "Under Siege" was the last. So far I don't think I've endangered his rice bowl, but I don't think he or his portrayals are evil either. I don't know him at all, so I'm not entitled to an opinion concerning his character. His characters however are just silly and over-the-top for my tastes. His worst offense to me is that he just doesn't know how to wear a military beret properly - makes me grind my teeth each and every time, but that's just me.

That and it seems to be a quite widespread opinion that he seems like ...well...a kind of an ABRUPT...sudden;;; u;h....what's that word for that kind of guy? Oh, yeah. Kind of a jerk. Some people say. But he does seem to carefully cultivate that image, so who am I to deny him?

As Faulkner said, "Don't deny me. Don't deny me."

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu